HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 051-09 • RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Rochester Common Council requested an amendment to
Planned Unit Development R-101 (Essex Estates) to allow for the use of the property at 4102
Glouster Lane N.W., to be used as a duplex. The property is described as Lots 20 and 21,
Block 1, Essex Estates Second; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, at its January 14, 2009, meeting
reviewed the proposed amendment in light of the criteria provided by Section 61.146 of the
Rochester Code of Ordinances and made the following findings of fact:
61.146 Standard for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator,
Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a
conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the
proposed development is made:
1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and
pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and
ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden
upon public facilities.
The provisions for vehicle loading, unloading, vehicular and
pedestrian circulation should not create hazards in this area.
• Parking requirements for the use of the property as a group
residential care facility can be met via the existing driveway and
garage.
2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and
structures will be detrimental to other private development in the
neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and
storm drains, water or similar public facilities.
The existing use of home on the property would not be changing.
3) The provision for on-site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide
adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of
the development.
There is existing landscaping on the property.
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems
that may be created by the development.
The existing use of home on the property would not be changing.
5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists
traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of
occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and
• diminish the usability of adjacent properties.
1
• Existing exterior lighting would not be changing.
6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not
providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for
emergency vehicles. .
The existing use of home on the property would not be changing.
The use does not appear to create hazards related to site access for
emergency vehicles.
7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial
change in the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such
that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this
paragraph.
Not applicable
8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards
applying to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with
standards specifically applicable to the type of conditional use under
consideration, or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters
such as signs which are part of the proposed development, and a
variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant.
• The underlying zoning district for the PUD is the R-1 zoning district
which does not allow duplexes. However, since the property is
zoned PUD a certain use of the property is being proposed; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission, at its January 14, 2009, meeting
reviewed the proposed amendment in light of the criteria provided by Section 62.708 of the
Rochester Code of Ordinances and made the following findings of fact:
62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to
approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application, the Commission and
Council shall be guided by the following criteria:
1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned
utilities in the area are adequate to serve the proposed
development.
There do not appear to be any capacity concerns related to the
public facilities. No changes are proposed to the existing
dwelling.
b) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic
• hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have
2
• been identified and the development of these areas has been
taken into account or will be addressed in the Phase II plans.
The site is located within the area determined to be outside of
the 500-year floodplain.
c) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction,
the arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to
the extent practical, utilized the existing topography and existing
desirable vegetation of the site.
Not applicable.
d) Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area,
the proposed development:
1) Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities
on local residential streets;
2) Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential
streets;
3) Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime
• hours on local residential streets;
The use will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned
capabilities on local residential streets.
e) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the
development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be
exceeded, and conceptual improvements to reduce the impact of
access points on the traffic flow of adjacent streets have been
identified where needed.
Anticipated traffic generated by the development will not
cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded.
f) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction,
the heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible
with the surrounding development. Factors to consider include:
1) Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent
properties during a majority of the day for over four (4)
months out of the year;
2) Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the
primary exposures of adjacent residential dwellings created
• due to differences in elevation.
3
i
• The existing dwelling on the property would not be
changing. The height of the dwelling falls within the
height limitations for single family dwellings.
g) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction,
proposed setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a
manner consistent with that required for permitted uses in the
underlying zoning district.
The existing dwelling meets the setback requirements for the
R-1 zoning district
h) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new
construction, the preliminary site layout indicates adequate building
separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to open
spaces, street frontages or other focal points.
There is a separate entrance for the dwelling located in the
lower level which has a sidewalk that leads to 41st Street N.W.
i) Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and
bufferyards proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of
residents in the development or surrounding residential areas from
the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility
. areas such as refuse storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible
standards, potential safety hazards, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle
access, or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk between
adjacent land uses.
There is existing landscaping on the property.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes
adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in
the case of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to
meet ordinance requirements.
Parking requirements for the use of the property as group
residential care facility can be met via the existing driveway
and garage.
k) General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual
appearance, general density and overall site design of the
proposed development should be compared to the established
pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood
and the existing land forms of the area to determine the general
compatibility of the development with its surroundings.
The property has been operated like a duplex since.2000 and
appears compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; and,
4
r a
0 WHEREAS, the Commission concluded the proposed amendment to the PUD complied
with the above ordinance requirements and recommended its approval subject to the following
condition:
1. The use of the property shall be limited to Group Residential Care uses;
and,
WHEREAS, the Common Council, at its January 21, 2009, meeting, considered the
matter, concurred with the Commission's findings and recommendation, and adopted the
Commission's recommended condition as its own.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Common Council of the City of Rochester
that applicant's proposed amendment to Planned Unit Development R-101 (Essex Estates) to
allow the use of the property located at 4102 Glouster Lane N.W., to be used as a duplex is in all
things approved subject to the above one condition.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS �Isr AY,OF 2009.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST:
ITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF lw6I , 2009.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Seal of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
Zone05\PU D.amendR101
i
5